General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)

[Patrick_68000]

Audi, the prestigious German manufacturer relies on electric.

The manufacturer of Ingolstadt plans to propose thirty electric models by 2025.

A recognition that the human activities are responsible for the destruction of the environment by the irresponsible emission of astronomical amount of CO2.

An additional major player who joins the big global movement for the safeguard of the planet.

 

[GJ51]

Audi, the prestigious German manufacturer relies on electric.

The manufacturer of Ingolstadt plans to propose thirty electric models by 2025.

A recognition that the human activities are responsible for the destruction of the environment by the irresponsible emission of astronomical amount of CO2.

An additional major player who joins the big global movement for the safeguard of the planet.

Sounds convincing doesn't it? Until you realize that Auto mfgrs. make products that are in demand. Their motive is profit.

There's nothing wrong with making and/or using electric powered vehicles.

The fallacy is thinking that it's going to have any impact on climate change.

It can't even be quantitatively measured.

The major benefit of utilization of electric vehicles, especially in large cities, is an improvement in air quality by reducing particulates and other harmful gas byproducts of combustion. An auto maker touting reduced CO2 is just marketing.

https://www.erswhitebook.org/chapters/outdoor-environment/pollution-composition-sources/

Pollution: composition/sources
Air pollution results from a complex mixture of thousands of pollutants. This mixture may include solid and liquid particles suspended in the air (particulate matter (PM)), and various gases such as ozone (O3), nitrogen oxides (NO2 or NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and carbon monoxide (CO). The mixture varies with geographical location and the sources of the emissions. Particles vary in number, size, shape, surface area and chemical composition, while both particles and gases may vary in solubility and toxicity. The most important processes causing air pollution relate to the combustion of fossil fuels used in cars and trucks, aeroplanes, vessels or other engines, as well as in industries, power plants or household heating systems. Due to the close proximity of people to emissions, transport-related activities, particularly the use of cars and trucks, are an important source of air pollutants.

Traditionally, studies of the health effects of air pollution have measured some marker of air pollution, e.g. size-specific PM fractions, such as particles with an aerodynamic diameter of <10 μm (PM10) or <2.5 μm (PM2.5), respectively, or NO2. Commonly used indirect markers of traffic-related pollutants are traffic density at the nearest road or residential distance from busy roads.

See the entire Outdoor environment Chapter

 

[Patrick_68000]

Sounds convincing doesn't it? Until you realize that Auto mfgrs. make products that are in demand. Their motive is profit.

There's nothing wrong with making and/or using electric powered vehicles.

The fallacy is thinking that it's going to have any impact on climate change.

It can't even be quantitatively measured.

The important thing is that it will make much less CO2 in my city and that I would not be disturbed by breathing the disgusting and unhealthy exhaust gas, who invade my streets and darken the lungs of people intelligent and respectful of the nature, and also darken the facades of homes.

It's time for these old cowboys who pollute the lives of evolved people, disappear from the traffic forever.

 

[jasonbarron]

Setting aside direct emmisions coming from an automobile exhaust system, I wonder which vehicle has a more damaging effect on the world's resources and ecosystem, the combustion engine vs the electric car? Speaking in terms of creating the batteries, raw resources, eventually having to recycle the worn out vehicle at the end of its lifespan, etc.

 

[GJ51]

The important thing is that it will make much less CO2 in my city and that I would not be disturbed by breathing the disgusting and unhealthy exhaust gas, who invade my streets and darken the lungs of people intelligent and respectful of the nature, and also darken the facades of homes.

It's time for these old cowboys who pollute the lives of evolved people, disappear from the traffic forever.

I agree that reducing Air Pollution is a good thing. The problem I have is the fallacious acceptance of CO2 as a pollutant. It's a naturally occurring gas that is a necessary component of life. Study the Krebs Cycle if you don't want to take my word for it.

CO2 in recent years (about 100 IIRC) has risen from .03% to .04% in the atmosphere. The fear mongers will point out that that's a 25% increase in CO2 levels. But it only a .01% change in it's % of gas in the atmosphere. That's One 100th of 1% !!!

There's no way to measure how it has impacted Climate nor are there any guarantees that reducing back to .03% would have any impact on Climate.

 

[GJ51]

Just something I realized in my lifetime. If you look at the history of Europe and the U.S. over the past 300 years, there were no significant (reported) weather events on both sides of the Atlantic for Great Britain, France, Germany or the Eastern or Western U.S. The fleets of British and American ships crossing the Atlantic rarely reported storms at sea and to a greater extent, the British and French could not have been involved in the American Revolution or the Civil War had there been massive category three, four and five hurricanes bouncing around the Atlantic at that time. The revolutionary war could not have been fought with massive weather systems flying up and down the Atlantic coast, battering places like Atlanta, Washington DC, North and South Carolina's, Georgia and the Mississippi River area, with massive river flooding. The Colonials and the British never reported storms or massive river flooding during this time hampering the battles that took place. Later, during the Civil War, Both the North and South were not delayed or hampered in their battles by radical weather conditions during the spring, summer and fall months of each year. The American Indians of the North and Western U.S. during the western migration of settlers do not report sever weather or massive forest fires hampering their resistance efforts and the settlers of the western U.S., with their telegraphs and news papers were certainly capable of making such reports. So, my conclusion here is that our current state of global weather is a new thing, caused solely by the rapid industrialization of the planet since the late 1890's to today. The burning of fossil fuels, use of combustion engines, improper disposal of waste globally has caused the weather to change in my lifetime and for future generations. As a child, I did not hear of or experience anything like what is happening with the weather today. For me, it's like night and day for what I saw weather wise between my childhood and now in my senior years. Even if we could get the entire planet to cooperate in stopping the burning of fossil fuels and the use of combustion engines today, I don't think we can avoid the rise of sea levels, global warming, the melting of the ice caps or a change in global weather catastrophies to come.

I leave you with this cartoon. Unfortunately, it speaks the truth to the destiny of our species given what we have done to the planet to date.

View attachment 147424

o7....

Death and extinction are inevitable.

Selling anything else is Snake Oil.

It's only the mechanisms that will eventually be revealed and no one will be left to appreciate them.

 

[Morbad]

some resources that just might lead some who are interested to quality information

Climate Depot - SourceWatch

sourcewatch.org

Marc Morano – The Heartland Institute

www.heartland.org

Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year: Marc Morano

www.mediamatters.org

As predicted

Thanks again

Your link was to a media propaganda site filled with opinion pieces...not anything that could be mistaken as research.

Here's another source you can point out as a quack for not fitting your narrative.

Hope you like it.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Though this is more interesting by simple virtue of the fact that it contains links to actual papers, Dr. Spencer out's himself as a quack trying to spin a biased narrative, rather than conduct proper research, in his own links:

Research Articles & Simple Climate Model « Roy Spencer, PhD

www.drroyspencer.com

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603 -- one of his more recent papers, second one on his list

Now look at the link to the editorial at the top of that link:

Taking Responsibility on Publishing the Controversial Paper “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” by Spencer and Braswell, Remote Sens. 2011, 3(8), 1603-1613

Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate...

www.mdpi.com

Yeah, the editor of Remote Sensing, the journal that published that paper, resigned over his mistake in allowing it to be published.

Even I was able to pick up some problems with claims in that paper, but if you want a critique, by people more qualified than myself, here you go: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

Anyway, the rest of his blog is riddled with outdated assertions and deliberate misinformation, which is not surprising for someone also on the Heartland Institute's and the George C. Marshall Institute's payrolls, being compensated to step up his rhetoric.

All of which is a real shame, as, from his earlier papers, it seems as though he used to be an honest researcher.

I agree that reducing Air Pollution is a good thing. The problem I have is the fallacious acceptance of CO2 as a pollutant. It's a naturally occurring gas that is a necessary component of life. Study the Krebs Cycle if you don't want to take my word for it.

CO2 in recent years (about 100 IIRC) has risen from .03% to .04% in the atmosphere. The fear mongers will point out that that's a 25% increase in CO2 levels. But it only a .01% change in it's % of gas in the atmosphere. That's One 100th of 1% !!!

There's no way to measure how it has impacted Climate nor are there any guarantees that reducing back to .03% would have any impact on Climate.

Every assertion you try to make here is fallacious enough to be explained on "top ten climate change fallacy" lists.

 

[jasonbarron]

Climate Depot - SourceWatch

sourcewatch.org

Marc Morano – The Heartland Institute

www.heartland.org

Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year: Marc Morano

www.mediamatters.org

Your link was to a media propaganda site filled with opinion pieces...not anything that could be mistaken as research.



Though this is more interesting by simple virtue of the fact that it contains links to actual papers, Dr. Spencer out's himself as a quack trying to spin a biased narrative, rather than conduct proper research, in his own links:

Research Articles & Simple Climate Model « Roy Spencer, PhD

www.drroyspencer.com

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603 -- one of his more recent papers, second one on his list

Now look at the link to the editorial at the top of that link:

Taking Responsibility on Publishing the Controversial Paper “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” by Spencer and Braswell, Remote Sens. 2011, 3(8), 1603-1613

Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate...

www.mdpi.com

Yeah, the editor of Remote Sensing, the journal that published that paper, resigned over his mistake in allowing it to be published.

Even I was able to pick up some problems with claims in that paper, but if you want a critique, by people more qualified than myself, here you go: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

Anyway, the rest of his blog is riddled with outdated assertions and deliberate misinformation, which is not surprising for someone also on the Heartland Institute's and the George C. Marshall Institute's payrolls, being compensated to step up his rhetoric.

All of which is a real shame, as, from his earlier papers, it seems as though he used to be an honest researcher.



Every assertion you try to make here is fallacious enough to be explained on "top ten climate change fallacy" lists.

Reading your conclusions here is the forum equivalent to banging my face repeatedly against a tiled surface.

 

[GJ51]

Climate Depot - SourceWatch

sourcewatch.org

Marc Morano – The Heartland Institute

www.heartland.org

Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year: Marc Morano

www.mediamatters.org

Your link was to a media propaganda site filled with opinion pieces...not anything that could be mistaken as research.



Though this is more interesting by simple virtue of the fact that it contains links to actual papers, Dr. Spencer out's himself as a quack trying to spin a biased narrative, rather than conduct proper research, in his own links:

Research Articles & Simple Climate Model « Roy Spencer, PhD

www.drroyspencer.com

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603 -- one of his more recent papers, second one on his list

Now look at the link to the editorial at the top of that link:

Taking Responsibility on Publishing the Controversial Paper “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” by Spencer and Braswell, Remote Sens. 2011, 3(8), 1603-1613

Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate...

www.mdpi.com

Yeah, the editor of Remote Sensing, the journal that published that paper, resigned over his mistake in allowing it to be published.

Even I was able to pick up some problems with claims in that paper, but if you want a critique, by people more qualified than myself, here you go: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

Anyway, the rest of his blog is riddled with outdated assertions and deliberate misinformation, which is not surprising for someone also on the Heartland Institute's and the George C. Marshall Institute's payrolls, being compensated to step up his rhetoric.

All of which is a real shame, as, from his earlier papers, it seems as though he used to be an honest researcher.



Every assertion you try to make here is fallacious enough to be explained on "top ten climate change fallacy" lists.

I guess you haven't studied the Krebs Cycle...

 

[WeComeInPeace]

Been a while since I last visited this thread. You're still at it, trying to convince each other. I don't think you'll succeed. On one side you have the scientific consensus and the people who trust that. On the other side you have people who want to believe. You can show them as much evidence as you like, they still want to believe. Even among those who have seen some of the writing on the wall you find some sort of denial.

Let me ask a question I have asked before: If we currently are running the global food production at it's limit, and we use 30% of the fossil energy for that, and we don't have any alternative to fossil energy that works on a global scale, how are we going to feed 10 billion people in 2050?

The climate can be seen as a symptom of a much larger problem, being a sick planet. Nobody want's to be aware of that, because it's our home. I don't blame them, but it doesn't change anything. You can try and convince each other until pigs fly, but it wont change a thing. Nothing will change before we hit the wall, the edge, the cliff or whatever metaphor you prefer. In the meantime we can discuss and try to convince each other. Seriously, I think you're wasting your time, and you may have less time than you want to know. Spend it wisely.

 

[GJ51]

The Truth is out there

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm

Many factual citations available.

 

[jasonbarron]

Been a while since I last visited this thread. You're still at it, trying to convince each other. I don't think you'll succeed. On one side you have the scientific consensus and the people who trust that. On the other side you have people who want to believe. You can show them as much evidence as you like, they still want to believe. Even among those who have seen some of the writing on the wall you find some sort of denial.

Let me ask a question I have asked before: If we currently are running the global food production at it's limit, and we use 30% of the fossil energy for that, and we don't have any alternative to fossil energy that works on a global scale, how are we going to feed 10 billion people in 2050?

The climate can be seen as a symptom of a much larger problem, being a sick planet. Nobody want's to be aware of that, because it's our home. I don't blame them, but it doesn't change anything. You can try and convince each other until pigs fly, but it wont change a thing. Nothing will change before we hit the wall, the edge, the cliff or whatever metaphor you prefer. In the meantime we can discuss and try to convince each other. Seriously, I think you're wasting your time, and you may have less time than you want to know. Spend it wisely.

We're looooong past trying to convince each other; this thread is for all the undecided readers who have to weigh the evidence and make up their minds. Personally, I find your comment is pretty cynical if your aim is to convince people that the world is dying and that our doom approaches, because clearly your side is winning the argument on the broader societal level. You've got a few hold outs here and there, but you guys have pretty much effed over the pliable and oh so absorbent minds of all the Greta Thunberg's of the world.

 

[GJ51]

Let me ask a question I have asked before: If we currently are running the global food production at it's limit, and we use 30% of the fossil energy for that, and we don't have any alternative to fossil energy that works on a global scale, how are we going to feed 10 billion people in 2050?

It's a pure hypothetical. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to benefit global food production. Maybe the use of fossil fuels and elevated CO2 levels are the solution and not the problem.

Scientific Consensus is a political myth.

Science is always seeking new information and ways to test hypotheses to gain evidence for support, but to become a scientific conclusion, the hypothesies have to be tested and the results have to be reproducible.

Anyone claiming that climate debate is scientifically settled just doesn't understand Science.

There's a lot of conflicting evidence and most attempts at modeling Climate change have been utter failures requiring fraudulent data manipulation to salvage the credibility of the model. Climate Consensus IS political not Scientific, and demonstrably so.

The verdict is still out. The complexity of factors contributing to Climate Change are so varied, so many, and so poorly understood - not to mention dynamic inter-dependencies - that anyone claiming this to be settled Science must be either insufficiently educated on the topic, delusional, or just indoctrinated.

On a global scale we are actually in the early stages of reliable data collection using good instruments. It will be decades, if not centuries, before we begin to comprehend the analysis of the data we are collecting now. We are only in an era of dramatically improved weather prediction, and even that is still not fully reliable.

Climate Change is on such a larger time scale that even formulation of significant conclusions are grossly flawed.

 

[GJ51]

Everyone is free to live their individual responsible convictions and contribute to changing the climate as they see appropriate.

Stop driving
Do not heat or cool your home
Grow your own food
Throw away your cell phones and computers
Do nothing after the Sun goes down

Feel free to add to the list...

Just don't tell me how to live my life

 

[WeComeInPeace]

We're looooong past trying to convince each other; this thread is for all the undecided readers who have to weigh the evidence and make up their minds. Personally, I find your comment is pretty cynical if your aim is to convince people that the world is dying and that our doom approaches, because clearly your side is winning the argument on the broader societal level. You've got a few hold outs here and there, but you guys have pretty much effed over the pliable and oh so absorbent minds of all the Greta Thunberg's of the world.

I'm not trying to convince. To quote a female politician from a recent TV series: "I do not give a...". My point is that even if the side you're mentioning is "winning", they still don't have a solution that would work on a global scale. I'm not one of "them" btw. I don't think demonstrating or crawling on top of a plane solves anything.

I looked at the "system" we call Earth or home, and using simple logic and data available concluded that it is not possible to find a way out of the corner that we have painted ourselves into. I still haven't spoken to a scientist that can argue against my rather simple model. They change the subject, like nobody has been able to answer the question I asked above.

We don't play the system. We just float along. We might have an idea that the future doesn't look too bright, but we can't change it, even if we wanted to. Enjoy life as it is, for however long it lasts, and if you don't like it as is, change it, but I suggest we stop pretending that we're able to change the way things are developing. That's my point. And yes that is cynical.

The controversy over Jonathan Franzen’s climate change opinions, explained

Scientists are ed at the novelist — and at the New Yorker for publishing him.

www.vox.com

 

[GJ51]

I'm not trying to convince. To quote a female politician from a recent TV series: "I do not give a...". My point is that even if the side you're mentioning is "winning", they still don't have a solution that would work on a global scale. I'm not one of "them" btw. I don't think demonstrating or crawling on top of a plane solves anything.

I looked at the "system" we call Earth or home, and using simple logic and data available concluded that it is not possible to find a way out of the corner that we have painted ourselves into. I still haven't spoken to a scientist that can argue against my rather simple model. They change the subject, like nobody has been able to answer the question I asked above.

We don't play the system. We just float along. We might have an idea that the future doesn't look too bright, but we can't change it, even if we wanted to. Enjoy life as it is, for however long it lasts, and if you don't like it as is, change it, but I suggest we stop pretending that we're able to change the way things are developing. That's my point. And yes that is cynical.

The controversy over Jonathan Franzen’s climate change opinions, explained

Scientists are ed at the novelist — and at the New Yorker for publishing him.

www.vox.com

Here's a good read for you

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/book-incited-worldwide-fear-overpopulation-180967499/

“Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” he promised in a 1969 magazine article. “Sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come,” Ehrlich told CBS News a year later. “And by ‘the end’ I mean an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”

"Whoa is me, the end is near" is as old as humanity itself.

Someday it will become true and no one will be here to remember who was right...

Don't worry, be happy

We've not only adapted, but we are flourishing. Will it all come to an end? Sure, but the reports of our demise have been significantly premature throughout our history.

 

[Morbad]

I guess you haven't studied the Krebs Cycle...

If you think the Krebs Cycle implies that CO2 cannot be a pollutant, you are profoundly mistaken.

Pollution is anything that's harmful to the environment in question. Any rapid shift in atmospheric composition would qualify. If we were increasing oxygen or nitrogen levels proportionally to what we've done to CO2, they would also be considered pollutants (and more dangerous ones). Something being necessary, in some quantity, doesn't rule out it being a pollutant.

That's one of the fallacies I was referring to.

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to benefit global food production.

Also a fallacy.

It's significantly more likely than not that the net effect of rising CO2 levels global food production will be negative. Some plants do indeed photosynthesize more efficiently in higher CO2 concentrations, but that is only a small part of the equation of food production.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf -- pages 6, 15, et al.

Ask the Experts: Does Rising CO2 Benefit Plants?

Climate change’s negative effects on plants will likely outweigh any gains from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels

www.scientificamerican.com

CO2: Friend or Foe to Agriculture? - FactCheck.org

Rep. Lamar Smith said climate change "alarmists" ignore the "positive impacts" of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, such as increased food production and quality. But the impact of increased CO2 levels on agriculture is more complicated than that -- and, on balance, likely negative...

www.factcheck.org

Not for your benefit, of course, but for anyone who may mistakenly believe you know what you're talking about.

Anyone claiming that climate debate is scientifically settled just doesn't understand Science.

There is a great deal of work to be done, many aspects of climate change that remain only vaguely understood, and there will always be room for dissenting viewpoints, if they can be substantiated.

However, that doesn't mean that the preponderance of evidence isn't leading to an increasingly clear, fact based, consensus that is exactly the opposite of your opinion.

Just don't tell me how to live my life

Wouldn't dream of it, but you sure are going out of your way to ensure that rational arguments against radical policy changes are less likely to be heard. By dismissing all actual evidence and arguing from a position of willful ignorance, you are abdicating your say in rational discussion.

When I'm taxed (even I pay sales, property, and utility tax) through the nose to fund ill-conceived reactionary measures to combat climate change, while big polluters go on polluting due to loopholes and exemptions, it's not going to be climate alarmists who are to blame, it will be you and those like you, who make those who might favor more realistic measures look like insane denialists.

 

[WeComeInPeace]

Here's a good read for you...

Do you understand the true meaning of exponential growth and positive feedback loops?

 

[GJ51]

I understand nothing

Just a total fool

A buffoon

Ignore everything I've posted

It's all a joke

Peace

 

[Arry]

Setting aside direct emmisions coming from an automobile exhaust system, I wonder which vehicle has a more damaging effect on the world's resources and ecosystem, the combustion engine vs the electric car? Speaking in terms of creating the batteries, raw resources, eventually having to recycle the worn out vehicle at the end of its lifespan, etc.

Err...Logically. The batteries can be reused elsewhere, as power storage units. Correct? If the bodies of the EVs are sustainable, then just fit new batteries, into them.

Agreed: We don't have a clue about what 'bad stuff' is a by-product, of EV manufacturing and those that might have a clue, that there is, or could be issues. Are keeping it, to themselves.